SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(AP) 175

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.CHANDRA REDDY, S.QAMAR HASSAN
Anantam Veeraju - Appellant
Versus
Valluri Venkayya alias Venkamma (Died) - Respondent
Decided On : 09-06-57

Surrender by a Hindu widow accelerates the succession in favour of the reversioner and the surrenderee becomes immediately entitled to the estate.

Headnote:

HINDU LAW - SURRENDER - EFFECT - LIMITATION - AWARD - RATIFICATION - ESTOPPEL - ELECTION.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration of their right to the plaint A and B scheduled properties, B schedule consisting of only a house, and for profits past and future etc. The suit is not confined to properties which were the subject of court-sales i. e. , items 1 to 23 but brings within its scope items 24 to 30 in respect of which the title of Ramannas branch was recognised in O. S. No. 357 of 1888.

Finding of the Court:

The plaintiffs have not established their claim to items 1 to 23 and consequently it has to be rejected. The suit was dismissed as barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are also estopped from questioning the validity of the arrangement.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have established their claim to items 1 to 23? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the validity of the arrangement?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiffs have not established their claim to items 1 to 23 and consequently it has to be rejected. 2. The suit was dismissed as barred by limitation. The surrender deeds had clothed the surrenderee with an immediate right to recover possession of the properties and the plaintiffs had not to wait till the death of the widow. 3. The plaintiffs are also estopped from questioning the validity of the arrangement. Dorayya had obtained a benefit from the other party by this transaction and he would have been prevented from disowning this transaction. This very property was sold away by the plaintiff under Ex. B-43 (c) to his mother-in-law for a sum of Rs. 23,750. But for the arrangement resulting in the conveyance of the items or Ramanna, neither Dorayya nor the 2nd plaintiff had any right to the properties which were ultimately alienated by the 2nd plaintiff.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed with costs throughout and the suit was dismissed.

REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of O. S. No. 80 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada. A. S. No. 637 of 1952 is brought by defendants 1 to 7, 31 to 33, 39, 49 and 50; A. S. No. 684 of 1952 brought by defendants 74 to 77 and 82, and A. S. No. 144 of 53 by defendants 35 to 38 and 40 to 48. The subject matters of these appeals are items 1 to 7, 20. 21, 22, 24 to 30 of plaint A schedule. The petition of the plaint was presented at the instance of two persons by name Venkamma and Sattiraju as reversioners to the estate of one Amutam Venkataswamy who died in or about the year 1887 and was directed against as many as 84 defendants as being in possession of property belonging to the reversioners. The 1st plaintiff is the daughter of the said Venkataswamy and the 2nd plaintiff her son. It is useful and necessary to give a resume of the facts us briefly as possible. 2. Venkataswamy, aforementioned, had incurred debts both on promissory notes and mortgages. On the foot of one of the mortgages executed by him a decree was obtained in O. S. No. 357 of 1888 against the widow of the mortgagor Venkamma (as by that time the mortgagor was dead) by two persons by name Raja Datla Venkata Suryanarayana Jagapathi Raju and Raja Datta Venkata Appalaraju or Rs. 2293-12-0 and costs Rs. 257-6-8 with subsequent interest. As the decree was not satisfied, execution was levied for Rs. 2641-5-8 and items 1 to 23 of the A schedule all situated in the village of Vetlapalem and involved in the suit were brought to sale. They were subject to an earlier usufructuary mortgage created in favour of one Madukuri Appayya for Rs. 2300 on 23-4-1884. Items 1 to 3 were purchased by one Modukuru Venkatapathy for Rs. 677, items 4 and 5 by one Noone Subbarayuda for Rs. 261, items 6 and 7 by Malireddy Veerayya for Rs. 301, items 8 to 22 by one Tathayya, and item 23 and some other properties by one Kondapalli Ramanna for Rs. 257. Items 6 and 7 of an extent of ac. 10-20 cents were attached by the Pittapur estate in execution of a decree in a Small Cause Suit No. 276 of 1882. The claim of Valluri Subbaiah in regard thereto was dismissed and the properties were brought to sale and purchased by one Miriyala Scetharamaiah. Subsequently, they were conveyed by Seetharamayya to Amatam Ramanna and Dorayya under two sale deeds in two equal halves, Exs. B-36 (a) and B-36 (g) dated 4-4-1899 and 4-5-1900 respectively. As regards the sales in respect of items 1 to 5 and 8 to 23. the subsequent events showed that they were merely name-lenders, the real beneficiaries being V. Subhaiah and his wifes brother Amatam Ramanna, the latter being no other than a first cousin of the last male-holder, Venkataswamy. These various auction-purchasers executed agreements in favour of one of the beneficiaries, Subbiah to transfer these properties with the contents that the purchases were made for the benefit of the latter, the auction-purchasers being merely name-lenders and that the bid amounts deposited into court were supplied by the beneficiaries. 3. Some time later disputes arose between Subbaiah and Ramanna details of which need not be here mentioned and in order to deprive Ramanna of his interest in these properties Subbaiah taking advantage of the existence of the agreements in his favour made a release of these properties in favour if his brother Dorayya in or about the year 1896 just before the latters marriage with the 1st plaintiff the daughter of Venkataswamy. On this, Dorayya claimed exclusive title to all these properties while Ramanna asserted his joint interest therein. In this situation, the widow of Venkataswamy put forward a claim to some of the properties. Ultimately, these disputes were referred to the arbitration of five respectable persons of the village as evidenced by Ex. B-40 dated 5-11-1897. To this reference, Dorayya, the releasee, Ramanna and his three brothers and Venkataswamys widow Venkamma were parties. The award Ex. B-41 followed upon this, under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top